Friday 13 September 2013 10.30 EDT
First published on Friday 13 September 2013 10.30 EDT

The actor Michael Le Vell has been found not guilty of child sex offences. And that is that. I daresay there are people who will always question the verdict, insisting there is no smoke without fire. They should resist this dangerous, damaging temptation. It's important to respect the legal process, not because it's infallible, but because it's the best adjudicator our society has.

Sadly, many people have no respect for the process at all, not least those who complain in the wake of this verdict that a "celebrity witch hunt" is under way, or claim, to quote a Daily Mail headline, that there was "not a shred of evidence" against Le Vell. There was evidence – the testimony of his accuser, which was tested in court and found wanting. Who should have tested it and found it wanting? The teenager's parents? Le Vell? The police? The CPS? Everyone knows it is difficult to bring an accusation of rape to trial, and has been even more difficult in the past. Nevertheless, it appears, some people have developed the ardent belief that it is now far too easy. It isn't. This case, and other similarly high-profile cases, send out an important message. It may be less difficult to bring sexual offences to trial. But a trial is most emphatically not a conviction.

Yet, those who are angry about Le Vell's ordeal do seem to want a conviction. In a grotesque misreading of what trial by jury actually is, they appear to think Le Vell's innocence points to his accuser's guilt. How? Only one person was on trial. Only one person's innocence or guilt was being tested.

But not everyone accepts that, not by any means. They argue that Le Vell's accuser deserves to be punished, if only to discourage others from making accusations. They think she should be named and shamed, like Le Vell was. Le Vell, they argue, has been punished anyway, despite the verdict. He has been punished because this accusation has been hanging over him for two years, disrupting his life and his career; punished because he had to endure terrible accusations and a miserable trial. Yet, this could be said of anyone who has ever been found not guilty by a court of law. Again, if certainty of guilt were needed in order to send people to trial, then trial would be redundant.

As ever, there has been some focus on the issue of anonymity in sexual crime trials, with some people suggesting that both witness and defendant should be anonymous. Actually, when rape anonymity was first brought in, it applied to both parties. It quickly became apparent that this was a major disadvantage when a suspected offender was being sought. Names or pictures could not be released to the public. Likewise, on numerous occasions, only the publicity surrounding a rape arrest has brought other victims forward.

As for waiving anonymity for both parties – the idea has its merits. Being the victim of a sexual crime is nothing to be ashamed of. But anonymity was brought in because one of the psychological effects of sexual crime is that victims tend to feel ashamed or blameworthy, and the legal teams of defendants are always keen to exploit this as much as they can. It's precisely the attitudes displayed in the wake of this particular case – in which the witness's guilt is inferred from the defendant's innocence – that are now the most powerful argument of all against encouraging people to stand in the witness box, loud and proud. How can they, when they are still so emphatically treated as if they're on trial themselves?

Are famous names particularly vulnerable to vicarious accusations of sexual misconduct? Jimmy Savile's posthumous exposure as a paedophile whose celebrity had allowed him to abuse children on an industrial scale suggests that the opposite has generally been the case. Those who cry "celebrity witch-hunt" in the wake of the Savile affair, point to the fact that Le Vell had been arrested before, in September 2011. The CPS at that time had dropped the investigation. Only after Savile had been unmasked did the CPS rethink and re-arrest. The salient point here is that the Savile publicity did not prompt the accusation, as it did so many others. It only prompted the CPS to realise that the criminal justice system had until then been demonstrably impervious to accusations of sexual offences against public figures, some of which had later been vindicated as perfectly credible.

Le Vell clearly feels he has been a victim of the criminal justice system. Yet, he, and all those noisily fostering a sense of grievance, could frame matters differently. I'd like to hear just one person, exonerated after a sexual offences trial, declare that despite their personal suffering, they are proud to live in a society that takes people seriously when they say they have been sexually abused, and that if occasionally people have to undergo ordeals like theirs, in order to ensure that others who have committed such crimes are less likely to get away with them, then so be it.

All those worries about women making spurious allegations of rape to wreak vengeance on men? The solution to the so-called problem is simple. Start seeing people accused of sexual offences as they deserve to be seen – as innocent until proven guilty. Start seeing people vindicated after trials involving sexual offences as people who have made their own unpleasant, unfortunate, yet heroic sacrifice to a cause much bigger than them – the fight for justice for victims. Encourage those wrongly accused to see themselves that way.

Whenever a person is vindicated after a rape trial – especially a celebrity – they and the media are given a golden opportunity to declare themselves on the side of victims of rape and abuse, despite the fact that this will inevitably spawn some individual unfairnesses and privations. Instead, almost invariably, the opportunity to create personal martyrs to the cause of false accusation is seized instead, as if the real victims of sexual crime are non-perpetrators in general, who are living in fear that at any time they may find themselves being dragged into a Kafkaesque nightmare.

I can't help feeling that this inversion of the reality of victimhood is at the root of the difficulties society has in dealing with sexual crime. Somehow, sexual crime is not seen as something that fairly normal people are capable of, only absolute monsters. Therefore, accusing someone of something so very heinous, never mind being accused, has huge stigma. That's surely part of the reason why victim guilt and victim blame exist.

The pervasive cliche that a rapist is a man in a mask, leaping from the bushes with a knife? It's a great way of persuading people that their own sexual misdemeanours, in domestic settings, against friends or partners or dates or "predatory children", are not abuse at all. Even post-sexual revolution, persuading reluctant girls to have intercourse is still widely considered to be the job of boys. (Reluctance thereby being the job of girls.) In such a climate, it's perfectly possible for the two main actors in a sexual crime trial both to be telling the truth as they perceive it. A sexual crime trial is not some sort of brightly painted judicial see-saw, with the light innocence of the defendant revealing the heavy guilt of the witness. Those who spout their playground opinions as if it is are friends neither of justice, nor of the victims of sexual abuse.